From Dr Margaret Beavis, Australian academic and former GP, today:

When it comes to nuclear radiation, there is a clear disconnect between the medical evidence and the views of the Coalition. Since the 1950s we have known there is a link between X-rays in pregnant women and leukemia and other cancers in their children. It is not for nothing there are signs in every radiology department asking if you are pregnant.

The current shrill denunciations of potential health risks associated with nuclear power plants as a “scare campaign” may yet prove to be an own goal, as it has drawn attention to the issue. Communities considering hosting a nuclear reactor should be aware of the evidence regarding real-world health impacts. Informed consent matters, in politics as well as medicine. Extra cases of leukaemia occurring in children living near nuclear power plants have caused concern and controversy over decades. In the 1980s, excess cases of leukaemia and lymphoma were noticed around the Sellafield nuclear plant in England.

A UK Government investigation unexpectedly found that the risks for leukaemia and lymphoma were higher than in the surrounding population. In 2007, the US Department of Energy examined all the reliable data available worldwide, confirming a significant increase in leukaemia for children living near nuclear power plants. The clearest findings on this subject come from a large national German study from 2008, which examined leukaemia among children living near any of Germany’s 16 operating nuclear plants over a 25-year period. It showed that the risk of leukaemia more than doubled for children living within five km of a nuclear plant. Nuclear proponents quote a UN study with an 80km radius showing no harm, but the much larger distance dilutes any problems for those living much closer.

Just last June, a very large (over seven million people) meta-analysis of reliable data from a range of studies found residents of any age living 20 to 30km from nuclear power stations had an average 5% increased cancer risk, and again children under five were the worst impacted. Thyroid cancer increased by 17% and leukemia by 9%.

^{https://johnmenadue.com/where-is-the-mature-debate-about-the-health-impacts-of-nuclear-power/}

On December 4th 2024, I wrote:

Just as Labour Government announces extension of 46 crack Torness nuclear power station to keep lights in London on, new research suggests cancer mortality risk is greater and quicker to develop than current estimates

By Professor John Robertson OBA

As a response to evidence that the UK [England] will need nuclear to meet its ‘Clean power by 2030‘ target¹, the Torness plant in Scotland, where 46 cracks have recently been identified in the ageing reactor², is to be kept in service until 2030.

Coincidentally, my alert on this topic today revealed, from the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (originally published 2 September 2024):

The scientists estimated that the mortality rate due to leukaemia increased by more than 250% per gray (Gy) of exposure (excess relative rate [ERR] per Gy, 2.68; 90% confidence interval, 1.13–4.55) and found the excess rate to be reasonably described by a linear dose–response model.³

British Medical Journal analysis offered this disturbing comment:

This major update to INWORKS provides a direct estimate of the association between protracted low dose exposure to ionising radiation and solid cancer mortality based on some of the world’s most informative cohorts of radiation workers. The summary estimate of excess relative rate solid cancer mortality per Gy is larger than estimates currently informing radiation protection, and some evidence suggests a steeper slope for the dose-response association in the low dose range than over the full dose range. ⁴

Put plainly, these finding suggest that there is a significant risk of cancer mortality for those exposed to radiation leaking from nuclear facilities, that it has been previously under-estimated and that it happens quickly to those who have only been exposed to a lower dose in the early years of that exposure.

Sources:

1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c33dvekx021o
2. https://nuclear-news.net/2024/07/24/3-b1-safety-warnings-as-cracks-rise-at-torness-nuclear-plant/
3. https://www.iarc.who.int/news-events/leukaemia-lymphoma-and-multiple-myeloma-mortality-after-low-level-exposure-to-ionising-radiation-in-nuclear-workers-inworks/#:~:text=The%20scientists%20estimated%20that%20the,a%20linear%20dose%E2%80%93response%20model.
4. https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj-2022-074520